Re: [Rfced-future] WGLC Review of the draft

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 1/4/2022 2:50 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Just to preface, I'm offering some text below just to clarify a point 
> on which I suspect the group agrees.
>
> On 04.01.22 19:52, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>
>> It wouldn't work for me.
>>
>> What I think EKR is saying - and let me use a concrete example - is 
>> that if 5 people that think changing the numbering system of the RFC 
>> series proposes that in the RSWG, gets RSWG consensus, but then the 
>> community overwhelmingly thinks that's a bad idea - well so what?   
>> The RSAB still has to approve the document?
>>
>> I would hope not.
>>
> Perhaps a tweak to Step 8 might help?
>
> OLD:
>
>>     8.  Once the RSWG chairs confirm that concerns received during the
>>         community call(s) for comment have been addressed, ...
>
> NEW:
>
>>     8. Once the RSWG chairs confirm that concerns received during the
>>        community call(s) for comment have been addressed*and that ****there is rough consensus of the community for the result*,...
>
> Or some such?  And the RSAB could send out further calls for comment 
> based on revisions, just to be certain.
>
> Eliot
>
>
Hi Eliot -

My first thought was this was spot on.  More thought suggested 
otherwise.  The problem is that language suggests the RSWG chairs would 
be evaluating community consensus rather than just WG consensus and 
that's probably not a useful model.  Maybe instead:

Leave 8 as it is.  Add "LACKS CONSENSUS" to the vote possibilities in 9. 
It's a more specific subset of CONCERN that generally suggests that the 
voter believes that community comment indicates fundamental flaws in the 
proposal.  I.e., this is not "the document reads poorly or has fixable 
bugs", but "the community thinks the overall idea lacks merit and 
changes to the document are unlikely to change that".  The document is 
still returned to the RSWG.

And that's conditional on any changes EKR proposes to the other text.

Mike